If you hope to make it through the day without losing all hope in humanity, you may not wish to read the following thoughts on Ray and Janay Rice from our old friend from The Spearhead, W.F. Price.

I know people instinctively and reflexively sympathize with the victim of a brutal attack, but …

Yeah, I’m giving you all one more chance to back out of this right now, because we all know that nothing good is going to come after that “but.”

… there comes a time when one has to ask whether or not the victim bears some responsibility for putting herself in this situation. Does Janay really think that will be the last time Rice gives her a beatdown? And even if she does, what statement is she making in marrying a man willing to treat her like that?

The statement is clear: she thinks the violence is a reasonable tradeoff for whatever she gets in return for her relationship, whether it’s sexual gratification, status or money. …

But feminists would have us believe that domestic violence is a patriarchal imposition, despite the fact that married women in patriarchal families suffer the lowest rates of domestic violence of all partnered women in the United States.

In fact, study after study after study after study find that domestic violence rates tend to be highest amongst those with traditional – that is, patriarchal – values.

Let’s let Price continue, as we haven’t even gotten to the worst stuff yet.

Maybe feminists think the patriarchy has secretly implanted little chips in women’s brains that lead them to seek out men who will beat them up.

Somehow, instead of choosing granola-crunching lesbians, these women make a beeline for musclebound athletes, beefy bikers and ghetto thugs.

How many different types of bigotry can he fit into one sentence? I count three.

But maybe it isn’t the patriarchy. Maybe there’s something about female sexuality that defies feminist ideals. Perhaps it’s kind of a chaotic, anarchic thing that doesn’t pay attention to pronouncements about what’s right and proper.

Maybe, just maybe, the only way to really cut down on intimate violence would be to restrict women’s sexual freedom.

Oh, but Price stops just short of explicitly advocating that men should be put in charge of women’s sexuality.

Would I advocate for that? No. As adults, women should make their own decisions in that regard. However, to blame men in general for the results of women’s sexual decisions is absolutely unacceptable.

As terrible as Price’s post is, the comments from The Spearhead’s regulars are, as usual, even worse.

According to the fellow who calls himself TFH,

The biggest error that Western Civ ever made was assuming that women could be ‘adults’. …

The woman’s brain-gina interface is obsolete. She is programmed to get gina tingles from men who were suited to excel in the world of pre-historic times, while she is programmed to be revulsed by the man who would have fared poorly then (the introverted STEM guys of today).

One cannot fully understand why women write love letters to serial killers and continue to get back with violent boyfriends, without also realizing the hate that women have for tech nerds, and how there is an obsessive push to divert tech money to women (i.e. they hate that money is appearing in the hands of men their gina does not tingle for).

Again, the brain-gina interface of women is obsolete. That is the most complete explanation.

Back in The Spearhead’s comment section, meanwhile, Eric J Schlegel trots out some evo-psych just-so stories to buttress a similarly backwards conclusion:

Women get the ‘gina tingle from the alpha male because, from an evolutionary perspective, those are the genes that contribute to survival. Trouble is, those same sociopathic thugs are not at all any use as protector and provider, so she takes the results of her selective breeding, along with her black eye, and finds a beta schlub provider to help raise them. … [P]erhaps others here have similar stories where female aquaintances chose assholes in their hormoned youth, only to settle for a nice guy with 3-4 thug bastards in tow. Women such as the one you’ve talked about here are those who have not overcome their animal instincts, every bit as much as the men who put them in ICU. The authority that a man used to have over his daughters as well as his sons used to act as somewhat of a check on this social dynamic, but we all know what happened to that…

I think it’s safe to say that if you ever run across a dude who refers to “‘ginas” instead of “vaginas” you should run as far away as your legs will take you.

Someone called Stoltz concludes

This is what happens when a society tells women they are equal – no,no – superior – to men. Movies and TV shows that show a female character acting like a hellish b*tch, goings around kicking everyone’s rearends. … Feminist and a feminist-backed government who tell women they have no responsibilities, and all the rights, so they believe they can do whatever they please to whoever (of course, the ‘whoever’ are men).

Meanwhile, another commenter suggests that the only solution is “to repeal the civil rights laws that prevent people from keeping ‘those’ people out.” Yet another declares that “Ray Rice triggers my gaydar pretty hard” and suggests that Janay “looks like a tranny.”

Price himself shows up with some comments even worse than his post, arguing that abused women stick with their abusers

because it feels good. Having a dominant man is a pleasurable feeling for a lot of women. It’s like a shot of dope for a heroin addict, who knows that he’s taking a big risk each time he injects the drug into his arm, but can’t stop himself from doing so anyway.

Just a couple days ago there was a power outage where I live due to some construction/maintenance in the area. I had to go to a nearby hotspot to do some work online and so did a few neighbors. One of my neighbors was an ordinary, middle-aged woman. She left her phone on speaker for some reason, and she got a call from her man that I heard as clear as day. He called, and then when she didn’t pick up immediately I could hear him yelling at her in a threatening manner for not answering promptly. Then, the guy demanded she get power of attorney over her mother so he could drain the old lady’s bank account, and when she raised reasonable objections to it he was insistent and angry. I was just shaking my head, but this mild-mannered, very plain 40-something white lady looked positively radiant upon receiving this kind of violent attention from her thuggish, scumbag boyfriend.

That’s right TFH, women don’t like you because you’re so awesome and evolved. They’re just too stupid to be turned on by your amazing intellect. Keep telling yourself that buddy. If you believe the grapes are sour hard enough, maybe they will really become as sour as you wish they were. Dare to dream, douchebro. Dare to dream.

Sometimes I think it helps to eliminate most of the build-up after the “but…” and cut right to the hideous argument’s final conclusion. To that end, I offer Price’s statement pared down to its nasty essence through a simple bit of elision:

I know people instinctively and reflexively sympathize with the victim of a brutal attack, but the only way to really cut down on intimate violence would be to restrict women’s sexual freedom.

Women get the ‘gina tingle from the alpha male because, from an evolutionary perspective, those are the genes that contribute to survival. Trouble is, those same sociopathic thugs are not at all any use as protector and provider, so she takes the results of her selective breeding, along with her black eye, and finds a beta schlub provider to help raise them. … [P]erhaps others here have similar stories where female aquaintances chose assholes in their hormoned youth, only to settle for a nice guy with 3-4 thug bastards in tow.

I’d like to take this evopsyche BS for a spin. Please bear with me.

So, in Caveman Days, women were attracted to the big, beefy guys who could bring down a mammoth single-handedly, and preferentially mated with them. Seems like those guys would be great providers, with the mammoth-killing and the big beefiness that could run off any other threatening … saber-toothed tiger, but for some reason the gene for “domestic violence” is on the same allele as the gene for “single-handed mammoth killer.” So she would get preggers, pop out 3-4 kids, then go find a beta schlub provider to raise them.

Why are the beta schulbs good providers here? This is one point where this story breaks down, because if the alphas have all the best genes for survival, making them preferred mates, it’s unclear what’s left over for the betas that makes them such excellent choices to help raise the offspring. If betas are sterling providers, seems like that is the trait that should be subject to positive selection pressure. That is the trait that should lead to improved offspring survival, which is the only thing that evolution really selects.

But let’s move past that. Women mate with alphas, then pair up with betas for help raising the kiddos. Since, in this story, everything is genetically determined, it should only take a few generations for the “beta” allele to become extremely rare.

If it’s a dominant characteristic, when the only people reproducing are the ones expressing the recessive “alpha-domestic abuser” allele (which must be homogenous to express, due to recessiveness) a selection pressure that is SO strong that a man with even a single “beta” allele fails to reproduce would make that allele quite rare in a short period of time.

It would be essentially a fatal genetic disease, and fatal genetic diseases tend to persist only in recessive alleles. If it’s recessive, you can (in general) carry it without harm, which allows it to persist.

So if it were recessive, alphas would represent the majority. If it were dominant, alphas would represent the majority. ??? This is an oversimplification of genetic inheritance, but it gets to the point: betas should have been largely weeded out of the gene pool long, long ago.

But let’s think of it a different way. Let’s think of it as a genetic arms race, in which only alphas reproduce, and so betas are, in fact, weeded out. Then only the most alpha of alphas reproduce, and yesterday’s alphas are today’s betas. This is, after all, how we get male birds with huge elaborate tails, and male lions with manes so heavy they have a hard time catching prey. In this case, since the “alpha” trait is huge beefy muscles, I see the end of this arms race being a human species with a degree of sexual dimorphism on a similar level to elephant seals.

In this case, it also remains unclear why ALL men are not domestic abusers, since the “not a domestic abuser” trait was eliminated by evolution long ago. Seems like this line of reasoning leads to misandry! And, if the beta traits are “good provider” and “low reproductive potential,” why do betas continue to persist? Yesterday’s alphas had few to no “provider” genes, so why do “provider” genes exist today?

The only thing my morning pop sciencey mind can come up with is that if all that is the case then beta’s still being around is because they are the results of alpha genes having been mutated. So they’re mutations?

@Policy of Madness
Thank you for taking the scientific perspective. I’d like to expand on your theory a bit, though. It’s possible that the beta gene is on the X chromosome. Since males get their only X chromosome from their mothers, the mothers could be carriers and beta offspring could still be produced even when mating with an alpha.

I think I can guess at where the spearhad types mental model accommodates the existence of “betas” and that they imagine prefeminist women would have pity sex with “beta” males to gain their steady income to take care of all their babies.(Whereas the “alphas” would dump the women after impregnating them)

They then envision feminism as stepping in and letting women support themselves which evilly killed the ability of “betas” to participate.

It still fails the genetic frequency test(why are there still so many “beta” males if it was clearly the inferior strategy), but in the longer term, in more subtle ways, that they can dismiss more easily without thinking about it.

Lord, this is so screwed up that it makes it really hard to comment.
So I will comment on the only thing that kind of makes sense which I think is this:

“It’s like a shot of dope for a heroin addict, who knows that he’s taking a big risk each time he injects the drug into his arm, but can’t stop himself from doing so anyway.”

I am not a therapist, but I have heard therapists use the drug-addict analogy when they talk of self-destructive behaviour, like excessive gambling, or joining a crazy cult, or regularly falling pray of con-artists, or staying with an abusive partner.
I don’t have much experience of these things, but it seems to me some sort of explanation of why it is so hard for so many people to remove themselves from toxic situations of different kinds.

Yes, I know, we should concentrate on punishing the criminals, not on how the victims should avoid them. But it is anthropologically interesting that so many people can’t find a way out. It’s heart-breaking, I can’t get my head around it.

I’m always curious as to why they assume the so called “alpha” traits are some sort of evolutionary advantage. Human’s succeeded largely because we were able to work together as a group, every single listed “alpha” trait I’ve ever heard of would make you into someone that would just be a nightmare to have to work closely with, much less rely on in a life or death situation.

Wow. TFH sure has a lot of projection going on there. And for some reason, he seems to think that “tech nerds” can’t be abusive, and that big, beefy guys (I’m assuming that’s what “men who were suited to excel in the world of prehistoric times” means) are violent and abusive. This is basically just the whole “jocks vs nerds” high school thing misaplied to evolution and human sexuality and relationships.

I’ve seen some of them point to the level of sexual dimorphism men & women do have as “proof” of their “alpha fucks, beta bucks” paradigm. I have no idea how the dimorphism in humans compares to other mammals, and they probably don’t either. They just know that human men tend to be bigger than human women and that proves something or other.

The manosphere can be boiled down to one long whine about how chicks dig assholes.
—
Well, no. cause you are missing the half of the manosphere that thinks they ARE the hot shit, and just don’t want to be bothered with the bimbos cause:cooties (or, i don’t know, something…). those “alphas” love to invite the betas into their little circle jerk, so they can teach them their wily ways of alphadogging it. or … you know…. something

Thank you for taking the scientific perspective. I’d like to expand on your theory a bit, though. It’s possible that the beta gene is on the X chromosome. Since males get their only X chromosome from their mothers, the mothers could be carriers and beta offspring could still be produced even when mating with an alpha.

All right. Let’s run that through. We have one “alpha” allele (which is also the “domestic abuser” allele), A, and one “beta” allele, a, both carried on the X chromosome. So a man gets one or the other, and the woman can have two of one, or one of each. We’ll assume that the woman is not behaviorally influenced by either allele. Also, it matters very little which one is dominant/recessive because a man only gets one.

We’ll start out with the alleles evenly distributed through the population, and 1 person with every possible combination. Our beginning population has the following women:

AA
Aa
aA
aa

Note that the middle two women are actually the same, both Aa.

We also have the following men:

AY
AY
aY
aY

All the women mate with one of the AY men. The aY men have no offspring, although they wind up taking care of them all while the AY men goes off and do their alpha thing. Since aY are great providers, all the children survive. We’ll also assume that the aY men love the kids, because they’re not assholes (the “asshole” gene is on the A allele). For simplicity’s sake, each woman produces 4 children, one with each possible combination of alleles. This is what would happen in a large and diverse gene pool, after all – everything would average out.

Note that we have 2 men supporting 16 children here. They’re REALLY GREAT PROVIDERS, OKAY.

An Aa women and an AY man produce AA, Aa, and AY children. Their box is as follows:

AA Aa

AY aY

We have two Aa women, so we have double those numbers: 2 AA, 2 Aa, etc.

The aa woman and an AY man produce Aa and aY children. Their box:

aA aA

aY aY

The final mix at F1

4 AA girls
4 Aa girls
4 AY boys
4 aY boys

This may seem like an OK combination, because we still have a lot of beta men, but crucially we now have zero aa women.

In our F2 generation, the women all mate with one of the AY men, and then parcel up their kids between the four beta men. Again, each is taking care of 16 kids and raising them to adulthood. These betas kind of rule, don’t they?

The boxes are the same, but we’re only using the first 2. We have 4 women producing each box of kids. Our F2 generation is thus:

12 AA girls
4 Aa girls
12 AY boys
4 aY boys

If we bring this out, we’ll discover that we NEVER have more than 4 Aa girls and 4 aY boys. The AA girls and AY boys keep growing in number, but the kids with beta genes remain constant.

At the F10 generation (I made a spreadsheet), I find that we have 4092 AA women, 4092 AY men, 4 Aa women, and 4 beta men to provider for all the 16368 kids that will be in the following generation.

I did say beta men rule, didn’t I?

It still fails the genetic frequency test(why are there still so many “beta” males if it was clearly the inferior strategy), but in the longer term, in more subtle ways, that they can dismiss more easily without thinking about it.

Yes, it still fails the test. As long as “alphas” are out-performing “betas” in reproductive capacity, the “beta” allele falls in frequency, precipitously. Maybe I’ll run another spreadsheet in the future, try to figure out at what point the “beta” trait persists in the population. But, probably, I won’t. LOL

I’m always curious as to why they assume the so called “alpha” traits are some sort of evolutionary advantage. Human’s succeeded largely because we were able to work together as a group, every single listed “alpha” trait I’ve ever heard of would make you into someone that would just be a nightmare to have to work closely with, much less rely on in a life or death situation.

That’s basically my take. If this were entirely genetic, like the evopsych idiots want to claim, the “beta” traits would be the ones leading to reproductive fitness, and would be the ones to outperform the “alpha” traits.

Or, we could ditch the “we are all like computers and only run the programs our genes encode” framework, in which case there is no problem, and incidentally no evopsych.

“The manosphere can be boiled down to one long whine about how chicks dig assholes.”

“= not ME! I.e., the Nice Guy who despises women but still feels entitled to their bodies and attention.”

====

The overlap between the Spearhead & Co’s thinking and that of Elliot Rodger (& Co’s) cannot be missed. It is the same poisoned well from which they all drink, despite the MRAs’ vehement denials of any such association.

Let’s review ER’s illustrious thoughts for comparison:

“Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female. Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy.”

And so on. The Spearheard & Co can fill in the rest. It is the same script since time immemorial. Like all misogynists everywhere, these fellas are obsessed with controlling female sexuality almost to the exclusion of anything else in life. Talking about it and trying to implement it in any way they can becomes their life’s mission. Pathetic (at best).

It’s all so stupid.
Um, the so-called alphas would have all died out due to reckless behavior — if you take their “theories” seriously.
Also, err, in caveman days, a good provider just meant working well within the tribe. Everyone pulls their weight and nobody hordes provisions. No one was rich, no one was poor. Class distinctions weren’t in place yet. It should be obvious to everyone that having the most kids could not have been a serious goal, since having more mouths to feed at a time when you couldn’t count on agriculture (at least most of the time) made you more vulnerable.
Or do these assholes think beta cavemen were especially good providers because they got all the solid jobs at the prehistoric accounting firm or IT company? Do they know The Flinstones wasn’t a documentary?

Also, despite what they believe, beta/nerds can be hateful bullies too — if not worse. I know they think they’re more enlightened because they suck at football or whatever, but if they could, they’d cannibalize alleged alphas so they steal their powers — that’s how much they worship the idea of the manly man.

Please tell me this is an actual thing you actually do and I can actually read it. This makes day 4 of rehashing this Ray Rice stuff, and I could really use a pick-me-up.

@the post

See, I thought they’d try to go in the “mutual abuse” direction so many idiots are picking up and running with like kids with kites that won’t fly. I mentally gave them way too much credit. Silly me and my silly woman’s brain.

I had to throw down with my boyfriend’s best friend over the mutual abuse issue. He’s a male DV survivor who was so heavily mentally manipulated that he thinks he was just as abusive as her. Which is complete shit, but apparently the only way he can justify his violence in response to hers is by saying they were both abusive. I finally dug up an article on survivor violence and the roles of primary aggressor and survivor, and I think I’m starting to press it home that she was the aggressor and his retaliation didn’t make him abusive.

It’s just so fucking damaging to see all this shit about how Janay “assaulted” Rice and therefore deserved to be slammed into a wall until unconscious. My immediate reaction to the status my guy’s friend posted was basically a triggered tantrum in the comments. Absolutely no one else jumped into THAT fight.

I did find something else interesting in my research. These studies the MRM cites that state women are just as abusive as men do exist, but they contain a rather deceptive skew. Survivor violence is factored in on the point system they use to gauge an act as violent. So if a woman is being strangled to death and gouged at her attacker’s eyes, both would be considered violent acts and given the same number of “points”. Not surprising that the entire argument for women being aggressors just as much as or even more so than men is built on such a shady misdirection, but definitely goes to show how little the…activists…do their own research.

Other manurespherians are not much better (ha!) in discussing this incident. Here weighs Obsidian from J4G:

“What the Rice situation proves, is that far too often it is BOTH the Man AND the Woman who are at fault, often with the latter party escalating things to a point of no return. Black Women have imbibed so much of the Feminist Dogma that they don’t know, and often do not care, that such ideologies are literally dangerous – as Ms. Palmer found out the hard way back when. Nevertheless, far too many Black Women feel that it is perfectly alright for them to routinely violate the personal boundaries and space(s) of their male partners – and then, want to play the role of Damsel in Distress, flopping all over the Fainting Couch when they literally get popped for it.”

He also compares this case to Solange Knowles accosting JayZ in an elevator and demands “equal justice.” Because a small woman trying, ineffectively, to slap a large man accompanied by an even larger bodyguard, and a large man knocking a woman unconscious are exactly the same, in the eyes of a misogynist.

But in any case, it boils down to women’s fault. Cuz they asked for it, one way or another.

” Black Women have imbibed so much of the Feminist Dogma that they don’t know, and often do not care, that such ideologies are literally dangerous

Wow. That’s beautiful. It’s like a brain caltrop or a malignant memeplex that eats souls. Look at it and weep. “Feminism is dangerous, because it makes you uppity, and uppity women get punched”. That’s…

Yes, I know, we should concentrate on punishing the criminals, not on how the victims should avoid them. But it is anthropologically interesting that so many people can’t find a way out. It’s heart-breaking, I can’t get my head around it.

Not really when you realize that mist DV victims don’t have the financial resources or support system in place to get out right away. You may mean well, but your comment is rubbing me the wrong way.

The woman’s brain-gina interface is obsolete. She is programmed to get gina tingles from men who were suited to excel in the world of pre-historic times, while she is programmed to be revulsed by the man who would have fared poorly then (the introverted STEM guys of today).

See there, right there, is the kind of reasoning I’ve been dealing with for the past few days. It’s depressing how prevalent that horrible line of reasoning is among men and women both.

Well that and the “she married him so she must accept that kind of treatment so let’s all just hum and look the other way” argument. I am going to have “qwerty” permanently imprinted on my forehead from banging it into the keyboard so much.

“I’d like to know how he even knows Palmer considers herself a feminist.”

In their minds, any woman who sees herself as something more than a doormat is a feminist. As Fibinachi pointed out in Obsidian’s loathsome “reasoning,” it is the evil feminism that makes women uppity by giving them an illusion of equal rights and other such nonsense (like having the gall to object to anything her man says or does). Ergo, Palmer is feminist.

Women get the ‘gina tingle from the alpha male because, from an evolutionary perspective, those are the genes that contribute to survival. Trouble is, those same sociopathic thugs are not at all any use as protector and provider,

Remind me again how protecting and providing for a mate and your children isn’t a survival trait?…

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here